Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Lourembam Deben Singh vs Union Of India on 12 November, 2018 cites

Naga People'S Movement, Of Human Rights ... vs Union Of India on 27 November, 1997

8. Notwithstanding the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India and the explicit directions given by this Court in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India [EEVFAM] the CBI was seemingly following up rather casually and taking its own time to complete investigations, which were required to be completed by 31st December, 2017 and prepare charge-sheets/final reports, wherever necessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 72 - Cited by 88 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Usmangani Adambhai Vahora vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 8 January, 2016

13. In the applications, the petitioners make a reference to various newspaper reports and it is submitted that the reported observations coming from the highest court of the country have created a real apprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the impartial manner in which EEVFAM is being heard by this Court. It is further submitted that hearing that case by another Bench of this Court is essential to subserve the cause of justice but the prayer should not be construed as casting aspersions on the Bench. It is further submitted and reiterated that there is a real apprehension in the mind of the applicants about the manner in which the Bench is proceeding with the case and it is submitted that the Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 10 of 20 apprehension is not based on any ipse dixit but is based on reports of the proceedings held on 30th July, 2018 widely reported in the print and electronic media, which clearly shows that the ‘guilt’ of each and every one of the applicants/petitioners has been prejudged, though only a police report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed. The applicants/petitioners have referred to a few decisions/case laws in the application and their learned counsel, during the course of hearing of the application, referred to a few other decisions. All this was supplemented by written submissions. The principal decisions relied on were: (i) Manoj Narula v. Union of India3, (ii) Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v. State of Gujarat 4, (iii) Captain Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal 5 and (iv) Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter).
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 40 - D Misra - Full Document

Amarinder Singh vs Parkash Singh Badal & Ors on 14 May, 2009

13. In the applications, the petitioners make a reference to various newspaper reports and it is submitted that the reported observations coming from the highest court of the country have created a real apprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the impartial manner in which EEVFAM is being heard by this Court. It is further submitted that hearing that case by another Bench of this Court is essential to subserve the cause of justice but the prayer should not be construed as casting aspersions on the Bench. It is further submitted and reiterated that there is a real apprehension in the mind of the applicants about the manner in which the Bench is proceeding with the case and it is submitted that the Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 10 of 20 apprehension is not based on any ipse dixit but is based on reports of the proceedings held on 30th July, 2018 widely reported in the print and electronic media, which clearly shows that the ‘guilt’ of each and every one of the applicants/petitioners has been prejudged, though only a police report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed. The applicants/petitioners have referred to a few decisions/case laws in the application and their learned counsel, during the course of hearing of the application, referred to a few other decisions. All this was supplemented by written submissions. The principal decisions relied on were: (i) Manoj Narula v. Union of India3, (ii) Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v. State of Gujarat 4, (iii) Captain Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal 5 and (iv) Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter).
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 60 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

R.K.Anand vs Registrar,Delhi High Court on 29 July, 2009

She submitted that learned counsel for the petitioners had a duty as an officer of the court to refrain from making allegations of bias on flimsy grounds particularly in view of the order passed on 30 th July, 2018. Learned Amicus referred to certain decisions on the subject of recusal and submitted that given the peculiar circumstances of the case, monitoring the investigation by the CBI or the SIT was necessary. Finally, it was submitted that if the present applications are allowed, then in all cases where judges of this Court make enquiries which are probing or even inconvenient to one of the parties in the matter, they could be compelled to recuse themselves. Learned Amicus drew attention to R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court.7 7 (2009) 8 SCC 106
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 140 - A Alam - Full Document

Extra Judicial Execution Victim And ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 July, 2017

1. These writ petitions have been filed by some police personnel of Reason: Manipur Police under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We have Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 1 of 20 been given to understand that these petitions have the support of a few hundred officers from the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and Manipur Police. These petitions are a fall-out of the decision rendered by us in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India1 and subsequent orders passed therein by way of a continuing mandamus. The prayer in the writ petitions is for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing certain oral observations said to have been made by us which, according to the petitioners, violate their rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Pending a decision in the writ petitions, it is prayed that we should not proceed with the continuing mandamus in the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 Next